i will warn in advance, this IS a rant, about the nerf to infestors.back when the major lotv gameplay changes were implamented, infestors got to cast fungal while borrowed.to balance that, fungal functionality changed from root to 75% slow, and it got 0.5 radius buff as well (to 2.5).the new borrowed fungal proved to be too much to deal with and was reverted back.the radius buff was addressed as well and changed to 2.25, a 26.5625% area buff from the original radius of 2.BUT, the functionality remained as a slow effect.

the question is, does 0.25 radius buff enough to counter the change in fungal functionality?in my honest opinion the answer is no.the solution is quite simple: back in the days, fungal was changed from instant effect to a projectile.that was done in order to deal with the BL+infestor meta (along with a nerf to it's +10 dmg to armor).now that it only slows instead of roots fungal can probably be reverted back to be an instant spell.it shouldn't bring back the BW+infestor meta and in any case both terran and protoss got new tools to deal with it.

so, what do you guys think?

Poll: Should fungal growth be reverted back to instant spell?

(Vote): Yes.(Vote): No.(Vote): It needs a buff, just not this one.(Vote): It's fine as it is!

On April 26 2018 09:39 batatm wrote:i will warn in advance, this IS a rant, about the nerf to infestors.back when the major lotv gameplay changes were implamented, infestors got to cast fungal while borrowed.to balance that, fungal functionality changed from root to 75% slow, and it got 0.5 radius buff as well (to 2.5).the new borrowed fungal proved to be too much to deal with and was reverted back.the radius buff was addressed as well and changed to 2.25, a 26.5625% area buff from the original radius of 2.BUT, the functionality remained as a slow effect.

the question is, does 0.25 radius buff enough to counter the change in fungal functionality?in my honest opinion the answer is no.the solution is quite simple: back in the days, fungal was changed from instant effect to a projectile.that was done in order to deal with the BL+infestor meta (along with a nerf to it's +10 dmg to armor).now that it only slows instead of roots fungal can probably be reverted back to be an instant spell.it shouldn't bring back the BW+infestor meta and in any case both terran and protoss got new tools to deal with it.

so, what do you guys think?

Poll: Should fungal growth be reverted back to instant spell?

(Vote): Yes.(Vote): No.(Vote): It needs a buff, just not this one.(Vote): It's fine as it is!

Hell to the fucking no. Instant fungal was pure cancer.

He is the Prince that was Promised, and his is the Song of Ice and Fire.

SC2 still suffers most from being too unforgiving, probably cause it is too fast paced (eco/tech/battles/unit movent/attacks per second).Small advantages/disadvantages translate too radically into later stages of the game.That narrows down ways to play the game legitimately.But more importantly, it kills design and balance options for game developers in a large fashion and eventually makes it impossible to create a satisfactory balance state from where you do not have the urge to continue to develop it further alot - all the time.

You see that from how big of an impact small changes have.This is one of the reasons players go back to BW. There it is possible to come back from situations, where you could never come back from in SC2, no matter how creative or unpredicting you play - at all levels of play.

In SC2 these situations we see in ~80% of games. A player gets the advantage and can rely on that he can only lose to a counter that is more or less all-inish. So both players prepare for exactly that, the one with the advantage to hold the (semi) all-in and the one with the disadvantage to execute the (semi) all-in.

No matter what and how much you change, it only changes the when and where, not the if. Furthermore these situations turn out to always be the same of their kind over a large amount of games at a certain state of balance (hence suggestion of rotating balance like Riot does), which is unpleasent for players and watchers at the same time. They see that they, their opponent or one of the players they watch are on that timer to get something done or already have lost the game.

This is the biggest problem of current SC2, well it actually has been since the start. Most other problems derive from that.

Thoughts on some of the other topics mentioned:

- Free unitsPeople tend to forget that terran has inverse free units due to heal. It always applies when small number of units fight against each other, which happens ata) early stages of the game (early bio attack can barely be damaged by only queens and zerglings, only surround + full kill/force retreat is possible).b) at the end of larger army fights (4 marauders + 3 marines + 8 medivacs kite down the survival of the protoss, consisting of few zealots and 2 sentries).c) at drop scenarios (3 marines between 3 mineral blocks and a building kill 10+ incoming zerglings without losing a single one).

resultsi) in equal army value scenario terran loses much less units than he shouldii) in advantageous army value scenario (for terran) the terran units don't lose any noteworthy amount at all vs. what is thrown at it

... which both result into free units for the terran. As they become free units after the battle has taken place and not before the fight (such as broodlings or locusts), let me introduce the branding of inverse free units for that.

- Bring old units backI really wonder at this point, why this is being brought up, even by members of this board, who actually should know better. But I see that they still just try to advocat getting an edge for their race at all costs mostly in opposite of helping the game to increase in quality.

Old marauder (play marine/marauder vs no matter what and when in TvZ with only few adaptions needed, one composition all game long), old widow mines (having cheap units that take opponent 5x as much time and effort to deal with, instant game enders), old instant fungal (stupid lock down of larger army sizes to make them unmicroable and prepare them for game ending surrounds or banelings, etc.), etc. is all bullshit that the game has advanced from, luckily.

- Zergs haven't learned yet to utilize their offensive capabilitesCan only come from someone who has never really played or understood zerg. The nature of this race is the game of drones vs. fighting units. Whenever you plan to attack, you usually cut drones in order to maximize army size.Why?Cause you cannot retreat. Only mutalisks, zerglings and banelings can retreat (hence it was played for years in TvZ). Stimpack, chargelots, blink stalkers, adepts, medivac boost + drop on evacuating units prevent retreating. When you attack and get overwhelmed, usually nothing survives (TvZ terran = stim back, boost out, PvZ protoss = warp back, blink back, other units can only be cought by lings, speed roaches or mutas off creep).Hence when you plan to attack, you try to maximize your chances in the fight (lets call it +ev fight) at the cost of your eco (-ev eco). The problem with that is, that you always have to pay the eco before and then have to make up for it in the fight. It is a high risk that is barely worth it ever at equal standing scenarios, hence zerg can barely be played efficently offensively when opponents are aware of your strategies (compare bly). The player who was capable of doing it efficiently is Life. He constantly traded +ev fight for -ev eco and came out +ev total after all. This is why he was so very special. In that sense you might have got a point when you meant every player should become Life, but still it is actually much more safe to play the +ev eco variant all the time and only change that when you are forced to (disadvantage or high enough advantage so that you can compensate for some losses or be able to close the game).

Things I read and support to try and work with:

- hydra too versatile(no alternative right now tho)

- ghost too rounded unit(same?)

- free conc. shells for rauders(worth a try)

Some more thoughts:

- creep speed advantageI still think it should be looked into. On creep might be little too fast, off creep might be little too slow (not zerglings probably). I am not sure of that tho, but worth looking into and testing.

- health boost for bio from medivac instead of healLets say bio unit gets +20hp from the beam of the medivac instead of heal. Could be really fun and shake things up a bit while removing the inverse free unit mechanic, which has much heavier weight than real free units after host nerf/figure out and broodlords being a pretty late, slow and situational unit. Getting that implemented would make it alot easier to balance around it than heal, which creates thoses stupid situations explained above which bring disorder to balance. Worth looking into imo, not sure if it can hold what it promises.

This is one of the reasons players go back to BW. There it is possible to come back from situations, where you could never come back from in SC2, no matter how creative or unpredicting you play - at all levels of play.

In SC2 these situations we see in ~80% of games. A player gets the advantage and can rely on that he can only lose to a counter that is more or less all-inish. So both players prepare for exactly that, the one with the advantage to hold the (semi) all-in and the one with the disadvantage to execute the (semi) all-in.

No matter what and how much you change, it only changes the when and where, not the if. Furthermore these situations turn out to always be the same of their kind over a large amount of games at a certain state of balance (hence suggestion of rotating balance like Riot does), which is unpleasent for players and watchers at the same time. They see that they, their opponent or one of the players they watch are on that timer to get something done or already have lost the game.

This is the biggest problem of current SC2, well it actually has been since the start. Most other problems derive from that.

That simply just isnt true, Terran's racial mechanics are all about comeback / recovering from taking damage (mules, drops, repairs, liftoffs etc). Nowadays you mainly see it just in TvZ (Maru played a macro game from being down 40 scvs for a good 10 minutes and won), because Protosses seem to roll over terrans once they get ahead, but that definitely hasnt always been the case. Protoss can also come back against terrans as well if it gets to the mid/lategame aoe units or the ground upgrades kick in.

Zergs dont have real comeback mechanics, in BW their comeback mechanics was mainly the Defiler, and not much else. Here you could make the case for Vipers against tank heavy mech, but even that doesnt really work if you re considerably behind in eco.

In PvZ protoss' comeback mechanics are turtle and max out, which worked very well, and still does, albeit very good zergs beat that with mass spore+ infestor

On April 22 2018 05:23 p68 wrote:I wish Blizzard would focus more on removing frustrating mechanics and gimmicks, and then worry about balance after. I am aware that it can be fun to use these mechanics and I am in no way faulting some people for finding them fun to use. These are mechanics that I believe reduce the perception of control that players have over their losses, thus making them more frustrating. It's clear that the game can be balanced around their existence; however, I don't think they're good for the long-term fun-factor of the game. Disclaimer: this is a post about design and not balance. Please try to keep replies focused on design rather than balance (although the former does make the latter more difficult!). The only thing I'll say about balance is that if the game requires these mechanics to achieve balance, in reality, that's a design flaw.

For the following examples, I must again emphasize to not focus on the current power of these mechanics; rather, focus on what they mean in terms of gameplay, for players both using or playing against them.

1. Protoss is too dependent on "control" play. a) Preventing enemy from engaging with a physical barrier (forcefields)b) Preventing commitment or punishment of adepts via shadec) Recall when you're caught out of position, reducing, at some level, of commitment to aggression and punishment for failed aggression. d) Stasis ward to potentially take multiple units out of a battle for considerable timee) Reducing potential commitment drop play as units can be built after the prism arrives. Conversely, if the Protoss player is attacked before the aggressive warp-in takes place, they can use their warp-ins defensively instead.

Subsequently, Protoss is inevitably put at a disadvantage if these mechanics are unused, as the game must be balanced around them. I believe that this forces Protoss players to play a hyper-aggressive style in every matchup. I believe that this is bad for Protoss (reduced build diversity and base unit strength) and non-Protoss players (more frustrating to play against) alike.

2. Volatile units that can single handedly turn a match on its head with a single (or handful in some cases)strike.a) Widow mine. This was nerfed, but the reality is that units like this can still do game ending damage with one or two volleys. b) Disruptor. It can either suck or completely obliterate an army; the pinnacle of volatility. c) Raven AAM. Stacking is far too punishing. d) Oracles. They can still do incredible damage early game even if an opponent knows its coming. And it's not exactly rare to see decent guaranteed damage at GSL-level, taking out at least 2-3 workers. It also seems like their low-risk nature has made oracle openers super common. (I think this is more of an issue with their instantaneous turn-rate, as they can often snipe a few workers even if there are some defenders in position to get shots in, but I'm not an expert here).

3. Legitimately free damage. I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about what "free" really means here, and I ask that readers focus on the impact of the examples I give on the game. I don't really think this category is a massive issue currently, but I'm all ears if others think so. a) Swarm host is an example of this. Thus, we have seen that, since its introduction in HOTS, there is an incredibly fine line between being overpowered or utterly useless. b) Auto-turrets and infested terran. I don't think they are currently a problem in their current form, but I'd argue that, by their nature, if they're not currently a problem, then they're likely leaning-useless. These have a stupidly fine line of balance similarly to swarm hosts, making their balance itself rather volatile. c) Broodlord broodlings. Here, just consider how the mechanic of killing the broodlings is rather inconsequential to the Zerg player.

These are frustrating mechanics to play against (e.g. control builds in any game, really). In no way is it the player's fault for using them, as balance assumes they must use these mechanics. My final argument is that Blizzard will inevitably have a harder time balancing the game while control and volatile mechanics exist as they do now.

The very definition of frustration (that is soooo often used by people on TL) is selective and subjective to its core. "it's so frustrating to play against" is literally the most used phrase in the balance threads. But where is the middle ground between so called "frustration" and the lack of motivation to overcome the challenge?[...]

You even brough up FFs in your post. Thats very indicative. 2010 anyone? Noone ever considers FFs a problem these days. But it was an issue back then. Time passed. FFs stayed in the game. Whiners moved on and eventually forgot about such a "frustrating to play against" mechanic like it wasnt the only factor limiting their skill on the way to pro scene. What happened in reality? People adapted. They improved their skill. But you continue to follow that false logic. And the examples you make are even more dull. Nothing of these (shade/recall/statis) are protoss CORE mechanics. May be WP to some extent, i can confirm that. Anyways the "frustration levels" of these are waaaay too exaggerated. And it what universe does it force protoss players to play hyper-agressive? Where? When? How?

The original post emphasized the frustration's gameplay, not the balance. You don't seem to find the difference between fun and balance. It doesn't matter if you can overcome it, it's still frustrating to play against it.It doesn't matter if I can win against this protoss a bazillion time, if there's still something that makes it not fun to play against, then you can be sure I won't be playing this game any longer.

Didn't mean to offend you in any form but my PoV on the matter can be summerized with the following:Protoss so called "control" abilities/gimicks/w/e have been in the game for so long that became naturally inherent to it. Protoss players learned to live with it, other races learned to adapt. In reality these things are not that defining and "gamebreaking". People just desilke everything they don't understand. But when they finally DO, they are completely fine with that. And now we come to the good part. All three races in SC2 really stand out. With the help of gimicks or not. They truly do.

Did it ever cross your mind that there are people who understand and still dislike it ? The fact that you think they are fine is only your opinion.

And btw. The same game with no gimick mechanics is called BW. It even has a remastered version. But the sole fact SC2 is way more popular (at least in the foreign scene) speaks for itself. Again. I have nothing against simplier design choices. But we never really know what is the best choice. Because design isn't an equation. It can't be calculated.

Do us a favor and don't compare those 2 games. The remastered version is just a trap. It's basically bw but still with the same pathing problem, limited unit selection, no queens, no chronos, no medivacs, nothing from sc2. Mechanically-wise, sc2 is simply far better than bw. That's exactly why I couldn't get back to bw anymore.The overall gameplay is much worse in bw than it is in sc2. FFs are just a minor nuisance compared to what bw has. But it doesn't mean sc2 is frustrating to play at times (which mostly comes from protoss units).

I thought i got myself clear in my post but i'll try one more time. People find everything they don't understand/something's dragging them out of comfort zone "frustrating". A lost a game - frustrating!, I got to get up early - frustrating!, I need to go to a shop to get something to eat - frustrating as fck! Ofc im exaggerating (just a bit) but how do i distinguish these from "real" (as you insist) frustration? And does it even exist? Or its just an excuse for not being able to overcome a challenge? You said "it's only your opinion". But i said the same thing in post: Having so called gimmicks in game and liking them or not is just a matter of preference. Yes, my opinion is that these mechanics are completely fine. At least they are not something hurting the gameplay. Some people dislike them, but it just means:

1) they are just trying to get an excuse for losing and will always whine about everything (and i witness dozens of examples of such behavior every day, in this regard i see no difference between HiroshiOne and a random LoL player blaming his team after gettin 0/16/3 in unranked).or/and2) SC2 just doesnt suit them. Yes, that's life. The game wont change, its whole gameplay is based on these mechanics (and i personally see it in a positive way). And i brought up BW as an example only for this kind of people for them to try a very similar game w/o these "frustrating" gimmicks. But you reject it as well.

Well, yes, i can partly undestand you PoV. SC2 is frustrating, BW is old and has other frustrating stuff like selection limits/pathing, no sarcasm. But. What do you want from an RTS then? Perfect pathing and and interface w/o any "frustration"? No random/volatile damage bursts/"control" abilities? What it would look like? A click vs A click? Again, i'm not being sarcastic btw. I would like to be proven wrong. But for some reason, there is no such game onthe market/in development.

On April 22 2018 05:23 p68 wrote:I wish Blizzard would focus more on removing frustrating mechanics and gimmicks, and then worry about balance after. I am aware that it can be fun to use these mechanics and I am in no way faulting some people for finding them fun to use. These are mechanics that I believe reduce the perception of control that players have over their losses, thus making them more frustrating. It's clear that the game can be balanced around their existence; however, I don't think they're good for the long-term fun-factor of the game. Disclaimer: this is a post about design and not balance. Please try to keep replies focused on design rather than balance (although the former does make the latter more difficult!). The only thing I'll say about balance is that if the game requires these mechanics to achieve balance, in reality, that's a design flaw.

For the following examples, I must again emphasize to not focus on the current power of these mechanics; rather, focus on what they mean in terms of gameplay, for players both using or playing against them.

1. Protoss is too dependent on "control" play. a) Preventing enemy from engaging with a physical barrier (forcefields)b) Preventing commitment or punishment of adepts via shadec) Recall when you're caught out of position, reducing, at some level, of commitment to aggression and punishment for failed aggression. d) Stasis ward to potentially take multiple units out of a battle for considerable timee) Reducing potential commitment drop play as units can be built after the prism arrives. Conversely, if the Protoss player is attacked before the aggressive warp-in takes place, they can use their warp-ins defensively instead.

Subsequently, Protoss is inevitably put at a disadvantage if these mechanics are unused, as the game must be balanced around them. I believe that this forces Protoss players to play a hyper-aggressive style in every matchup. I believe that this is bad for Protoss (reduced build diversity and base unit strength) and non-Protoss players (more frustrating to play against) alike.

2. Volatile units that can single handedly turn a match on its head with a single (or handful in some cases)strike.a) Widow mine. This was nerfed, but the reality is that units like this can still do game ending damage with one or two volleys. b) Disruptor. It can either suck or completely obliterate an army; the pinnacle of volatility. c) Raven AAM. Stacking is far too punishing. d) Oracles. They can still do incredible damage early game even if an opponent knows its coming. And it's not exactly rare to see decent guaranteed damage at GSL-level, taking out at least 2-3 workers. It also seems like their low-risk nature has made oracle openers super common. (I think this is more of an issue with their instantaneous turn-rate, as they can often snipe a few workers even if there are some defenders in position to get shots in, but I'm not an expert here).

3. Legitimately free damage. I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about what "free" really means here, and I ask that readers focus on the impact of the examples I give on the game. I don't really think this category is a massive issue currently, but I'm all ears if others think so. a) Swarm host is an example of this. Thus, we have seen that, since its introduction in HOTS, there is an incredibly fine line between being overpowered or utterly useless. b) Auto-turrets and infested terran. I don't think they are currently a problem in their current form, but I'd argue that, by their nature, if they're not currently a problem, then they're likely leaning-useless. These have a stupidly fine line of balance similarly to swarm hosts, making their balance itself rather volatile. c) Broodlord broodlings. Here, just consider how the mechanic of killing the broodlings is rather inconsequential to the Zerg player.

These are frustrating mechanics to play against (e.g. control builds in any game, really). In no way is it the player's fault for using them, as balance assumes they must use these mechanics. My final argument is that Blizzard will inevitably have a harder time balancing the game while control and volatile mechanics exist as they do now.

The very definition of frustration (that is soooo often used by people on TL) is selective and subjective to its core. "it's so frustrating to play against" is literally the most used phrase in the balance threads. But where is the middle ground between so called "frustration" and the lack of motivation to overcome the challenge?[...]

You even brough up FFs in your post. Thats very indicative. 2010 anyone? Noone ever considers FFs a problem these days. But it was an issue back then. Time passed. FFs stayed in the game. Whiners moved on and eventually forgot about such a "frustrating to play against" mechanic like it wasnt the only factor limiting their skill on the way to pro scene. What happened in reality? People adapted. They improved their skill. But you continue to follow that false logic. And the examples you make are even more dull. Nothing of these (shade/recall/statis) are protoss CORE mechanics. May be WP to some extent, i can confirm that. Anyways the "frustration levels" of these are waaaay too exaggerated. And it what universe does it force protoss players to play hyper-agressive? Where? When? How?

The original post emphasized the frustration's gameplay, not the balance. You don't seem to find the difference between fun and balance. It doesn't matter if you can overcome it, it's still frustrating to play against it.It doesn't matter if I can win against this protoss a bazillion time, if there's still something that makes it not fun to play against, then you can be sure I won't be playing this game any longer.

Didn't mean to offend you in any form but my PoV on the matter can be summerized with the following:Protoss so called "control" abilities/gimicks/w/e have been in the game for so long that became naturally inherent to it. Protoss players learned to live with it, other races learned to adapt. In reality these things are not that defining and "gamebreaking". People just desilke everything they don't understand. But when they finally DO, they are completely fine with that. And now we come to the good part. All three races in SC2 really stand out. With the help of gimicks or not. They truly do.

Did it ever cross your mind that there are people who understand and still dislike it ? The fact that you think they are fine is only your opinion.

And btw. The same game with no gimick mechanics is called BW. It even has a remastered version. But the sole fact SC2 is way more popular (at least in the foreign scene) speaks for itself. Again. I have nothing against simplier design choices. But we never really know what is the best choice. Because design isn't an equation. It can't be calculated.

Do us a favor and don't compare those 2 games. The remastered version is just a trap. It's basically bw but still with the same pathing problem, limited unit selection, no queens, no chronos, no medivacs, nothing from sc2. Mechanically-wise, sc2 is simply far better than bw. That's exactly why I couldn't get back to bw anymore.The overall gameplay is much worse in bw than it is in sc2. FFs are just a minor nuisance compared to what bw has. But it doesn't mean sc2 is frustrating to play at times (which mostly comes from protoss units).

I thought i got myself clear in my post but i'll try one more time. People find everything they don't understand/something's dragging them out of comfort zone "frustrating". A lost a game - frustrating!, I got to get up early - frustrating!, I need to go to a shop to get something to eat - frustrating as fck! Ofc im exaggerating (just a bit) but how do i distinguish these from "real" (as you insist) frustration? And does it even exist? Or its just an excuse for not being able to overcome a challenge? You said "it's only your opinion". But i said the same thing in post: Having so called gimmicks in game and liking them or not is just a matter of preference. Yes, my opinion is that these mechanics are completely fine. At least they are not something hurting the gameplay. Some people dislike them, but it just means:

1) they are just trying to get an excuse for losing and will always whine about everything (and i witness dozens of examples of such behavior every day, in this regard i see no difference between HiroshiOne and a random LoL player blaming his team after gettin 0/16/3 in unranked).or/and2) SC2 just doesnt suit them. Yes, that's life. The game wont change, its whole gameplay is based on these mechanics (and i personally see it in a positive way). And i brought up BW as an example only for this kind of people for them to try a very similar game w/o these "frustrating" gimmicks. But you reject it as well.

Well, yes, i can partly undestand you PoV. SC2 is frustrating, BW is old and has other frustrating stuff like selection limits/pathing, no sarcasm. But. What do you want from an RTS then? Perfect pathing and and interface w/o any "frustration"? No random/volatile damage bursts/"control" abilities? What it would look like? A click vs A click? Again, i'm not being sarcastic btw. I would like to be proven wrong. But for some reason, there is no such game onthe market/in development.

If they were to remake Red Alert Three with a better ladder system and rebooted servers I would play that game till the cows come home.

It was easy to pick up compared to sc2 or BW was fast paced and the only highly problematic stratagies tended to be allins that were to strong. Evrey unit had an ability that let you outplay your opponent in a pinch. Valuable objectives out on the map made the fight for map control valuable in all matches not just for its scouting value but for more emediate and tangible benefits like income and good defensive locations. Air was strong but more skillful more counterable and less slow and cancerous.

On April 26 2018 09:39 batatm wrote:i will warn in advance, this IS a rant, about the nerf to infestors.back when the major lotv gameplay changes were implamented, infestors got to cast fungal while borrowed.to balance that, fungal functionality changed from root to 75% slow, and it got 0.5 radius buff as well (to 2.5).the new borrowed fungal proved to be too much to deal with and was reverted back.the radius buff was addressed as well and changed to 2.25, a 26.5625% area buff from the original radius of 2.BUT, the functionality remained as a slow effect.

the question is, does 0.25 radius buff enough to counter the change in fungal functionality?in my honest opinion the answer is no.the solution is quite simple: back in the days, fungal was changed from instant effect to a projectile.that was done in order to deal with the BL+infestor meta (along with a nerf to it's +10 dmg to armor).now that it only slows instead of roots fungal can probably be reverted back to be an instant spell.it shouldn't bring back the BW+infestor meta and in any case both terran and protoss got new tools to deal with it.

so, what do you guys think?

Poll: Should fungal growth be reverted back to instant spell?

(Vote): Yes.(Vote): No.(Vote): It needs a buff, just not this one.(Vote): It's fine as it is!

Hell to the fucking no. Instant fungal was pure cancer.

then give us the old snipe dmg+old emp radius and we are fine.

If you want to change something I would change a bit how fast is the creep disappearing when you kill the tumors.Because you scan kill the tumors and in the time say can set another tumor and the creep keep there.

Maybe I would reduce the map overview of non active tumors so you cannot see everything but the most part.

On April 26 2018 11:53 LSN wrote:SC2 still suffers most from being too unforgiving, probably cause it is too fast paced (eco/tech/battles/unit movent/attacks per second).Small advantages/disadvantages translate too radically into later stages of the game.That narrows down ways to play the game legitimately.But more importantly, it kills design and balance options for game developers in a large fashion and eventually makes it impossible to create a satisfactory balance state from where you do not have the urge to continue to develop it further alot - all the time.

You see that from how big of an impact small changes have.This is one of the reasons players go back to BW. There it is possible to come back from situations, where you could never come back from in SC2, no matter how creative or unpredicting you play - at all levels of play.

In SC2 these situations we see in ~80% of games. A player gets the advantage and can rely on that he can only lose to a counter that is more or less all-inish. So both players prepare for exactly that, the one with the advantage to hold the (semi) all-in and the one with the disadvantage to execute the (semi) all-in.

No matter what and how much you change, it only changes the when and where, not the if. Furthermore these situations turn out to always be the same of their kind over a large amount of games at a certain state of balance (hence suggestion of rotating balance like Riot does), which is unpleasent for players and watchers at the same time. They see that they, their opponent or one of the players they watch are on that timer to get something done or already have lost the game.

This is the biggest problem of current SC2, well it actually has been since the start. Most other problems derive from that.

Thoughts on some of the other topics mentioned:

- Free unitsPeople tend to forget that terran has inverse free units due to heal. It always applies when small number of units fight against each other, which happens ata) early stages of the game (early bio attack can barely be damaged by only queens and zerglings, only surround + full kill/force retreat is possible).b) at the end of larger army fights (4 marauders + 3 marines + 8 medivacs kite down the survival of the protoss, consisting of few zealots and 2 sentries).c) at drop scenarios (3 marines between 3 mineral blocks and a building kill 10+ incoming zerglings without losing a single one).

resultsi) in equal army value scenario terran loses much less units than he shouldii) in advantageous army value scenario (for terran) the terran units don't lose any noteworthy amount at all vs. what is thrown at it

... which both result into free units for the terran. As they become free units after the battle has taken place and not before the fight (such as broodlings or locusts), let me introduce the branding of inverse free units for that.

- Bring old units backI really wonder at this point, why this is being brought up, even by members of this board, who actually should know better. But I see that they still just try to advocat getting an edge for their race at all costs mostly in opposite of helping the game to increase in quality.

Old marauder (play marine/marauder vs no matter what and when in TvZ with only few adaptions needed, one composition all game long), old widow mines (having cheap units that take opponent 5x as much time and effort to deal with, instant game enders), old instant fungal (stupid lock down of larger army sizes to make them unmicroable and prepare them for game ending surrounds or banelings, etc.), etc. is all bullshit that the game has advanced from, luckily.

- Zergs haven't learned yet to utilize their offensive capabilitesCan only come from someone who has never really played or understood zerg. The nature of this race is the game of drones vs. fighting units. Whenever you plan to attack, you usually cut drones in order to maximize army size.Why?Cause you cannot retreat. Only mutalisks, zerglings and banelings can retreat (hence it was played for years in TvZ). Stimpack, chargelots, blink stalkers, adepts, medivac boost + drop on evacuating units prevent retreating. When you attack and get overwhelmed, usually nothing survives (TvZ terran = stim back, boost out, PvZ protoss = warp back, blink back, other units can only be cought by lings, speed roaches or mutas off creep).Hence when you plan to attack, you try to maximize your chances in the fight (lets call it +ev fight) at the cost of your eco (-ev eco). The problem with that is, that you always have to pay the eco before and then have to make up for it in the fight. It is a high risk that is barely worth it ever at equal standing scenarios, hence zerg can barely be played efficently offensively when opponents are aware of your strategies (compare bly). The player who was capable of doing it efficiently is Life. He constantly traded +ev fight for -ev eco and came out +ev total after all. This is why he was so very special. In that sense you might have got a point when you meant every player should become Life, but still it is actually much more safe to play the +ev eco variant all the time and only change that when you are forced to (disadvantage or high enough advantage so that you can compensate for some losses or be able to close the game).

Things I read and support to try and work with:

- hydra too versatile(no alternative right now tho)

- ghost too rounded unit(same?)

- free conc. shells for rauders(worth a try)

Some more thoughts:

- creep speed advantageI still think it should be looked into. On creep might be little too fast, off creep might be little too slow (not zerglings probably). I am not sure of that tho, but worth looking into and testing.

- health boost for bio from medivac instead of healLets say bio unit gets +20hp from the beam of the medivac instead of heal. Could be really fun and shake things up a bit while removing the inverse free unit mechanic, which has much heavier weight than real free units after host nerf/figure out and broodlords being a pretty late, slow and situational unit. Getting that implemented would make it alot easier to balance around it than heal, which creates thoses stupid situations explained above which bring disorder to balance. Worth looking into imo, not sure if it can hold what it promises.

Had some more points, but I guess this is enough for one post.

Great post. I only disagree with the creep part. Zerg depends on getting good positioning before a battle, needing that vision and extra movement speed, otherwise there would be no chance vs things like tanks and storms.

This is one of the reasons players go back to BW. There it is possible to come back from situations, where you could never come back from in SC2, no matter how creative or unpredicting you play - at all levels of play.

In SC2 these situations we see in ~80% of games. A player gets the advantage and can rely on that he can only lose to a counter that is more or less all-inish. So both players prepare for exactly that, the one with the advantage to hold the (semi) all-in and the one with the disadvantage to execute the (semi) all-in.

No matter what and how much you change, it only changes the when and where, not the if. Furthermore these situations turn out to always be the same of their kind over a large amount of games at a certain state of balance (hence suggestion of rotating balance like Riot does), which is unpleasent for players and watchers at the same time. They see that they, their opponent or one of the players they watch are on that timer to get something done or already have lost the game.

This is the biggest problem of current SC2, well it actually has been since the start. Most other problems derive from that.

That simply just isnt true, Terran's racial mechanics are all about comeback / recovering from taking damage (mules, drops, repairs, liftoffs etc). Nowadays you mainly see it just in TvZ (Maru played a macro game from being down 40 scvs for a good 10 minutes and won), because Protosses seem to roll over terrans once they get ahead, but that definitely hasnt always been the case. Protoss can also come back against terrans as well if it gets to the mid/lategame aoe units or the ground upgrades kick in.

Zergs dont have real comeback mechanics, in BW their comeback mechanics was mainly the Defiler, and not much else. Here you could make the case for Vipers against tank heavy mech, but even that doesnt really work if you re considerably behind in eco.

In PvZ protoss' comeback mechanics are turtle and max out, which worked very well, and still does, albeit very good zergs beat that with mass spore+ infestor

I'd like to add that even in BW, whenever you had an advantage, you knew you'd win the game. It didn't matter if you lost your main army, in the end you knew you would've overun him. It's just a different edge from sc2.

On April 22 2018 05:23 p68 wrote:I wish Blizzard would focus more on removing frustrating mechanics and gimmicks, and then worry about balance after. I am aware that it can be fun to use these mechanics and I am in no way faulting some people for finding them fun to use. These are mechanics that I believe reduce the perception of control that players have over their losses, thus making them more frustrating. It's clear that the game can be balanced around their existence; however, I don't think they're good for the long-term fun-factor of the game. Disclaimer: this is a post about design and not balance. Please try to keep replies focused on design rather than balance (although the former does make the latter more difficult!). The only thing I'll say about balance is that if the game requires these mechanics to achieve balance, in reality, that's a design flaw.

For the following examples, I must again emphasize to not focus on the current power of these mechanics; rather, focus on what they mean in terms of gameplay, for players both using or playing against them.

1. Protoss is too dependent on "control" play. a) Preventing enemy from engaging with a physical barrier (forcefields)b) Preventing commitment or punishment of adepts via shadec) Recall when you're caught out of position, reducing, at some level, of commitment to aggression and punishment for failed aggression. d) Stasis ward to potentially take multiple units out of a battle for considerable timee) Reducing potential commitment drop play as units can be built after the prism arrives. Conversely, if the Protoss player is attacked before the aggressive warp-in takes place, they can use their warp-ins defensively instead.

Subsequently, Protoss is inevitably put at a disadvantage if these mechanics are unused, as the game must be balanced around them. I believe that this forces Protoss players to play a hyper-aggressive style in every matchup. I believe that this is bad for Protoss (reduced build diversity and base unit strength) and non-Protoss players (more frustrating to play against) alike.

2. Volatile units that can single handedly turn a match on its head with a single (or handful in some cases)strike.a) Widow mine. This was nerfed, but the reality is that units like this can still do game ending damage with one or two volleys. b) Disruptor. It can either suck or completely obliterate an army; the pinnacle of volatility. c) Raven AAM. Stacking is far too punishing. d) Oracles. They can still do incredible damage early game even if an opponent knows its coming. And it's not exactly rare to see decent guaranteed damage at GSL-level, taking out at least 2-3 workers. It also seems like their low-risk nature has made oracle openers super common. (I think this is more of an issue with their instantaneous turn-rate, as they can often snipe a few workers even if there are some defenders in position to get shots in, but I'm not an expert here).

3. Legitimately free damage. I'd rather not get into a semantic argument about what "free" really means here, and I ask that readers focus on the impact of the examples I give on the game. I don't really think this category is a massive issue currently, but I'm all ears if others think so. a) Swarm host is an example of this. Thus, we have seen that, since its introduction in HOTS, there is an incredibly fine line between being overpowered or utterly useless. b) Auto-turrets and infested terran. I don't think they are currently a problem in their current form, but I'd argue that, by their nature, if they're not currently a problem, then they're likely leaning-useless. These have a stupidly fine line of balance similarly to swarm hosts, making their balance itself rather volatile. c) Broodlord broodlings. Here, just consider how the mechanic of killing the broodlings is rather inconsequential to the Zerg player.

These are frustrating mechanics to play against (e.g. control builds in any game, really). In no way is it the player's fault for using them, as balance assumes they must use these mechanics. My final argument is that Blizzard will inevitably have a harder time balancing the game while control and volatile mechanics exist as they do now.

The very definition of frustration (that is soooo often used by people on TL) is selective and subjective to its core. "it's so frustrating to play against" is literally the most used phrase in the balance threads. But where is the middle ground between so called "frustration" and the lack of motivation to overcome the challenge?[...]

You even brough up FFs in your post. Thats very indicative. 2010 anyone? Noone ever considers FFs a problem these days. But it was an issue back then. Time passed. FFs stayed in the game. Whiners moved on and eventually forgot about such a "frustrating to play against" mechanic like it wasnt the only factor limiting their skill on the way to pro scene. What happened in reality? People adapted. They improved their skill. But you continue to follow that false logic. And the examples you make are even more dull. Nothing of these (shade/recall/statis) are protoss CORE mechanics. May be WP to some extent, i can confirm that. Anyways the "frustration levels" of these are waaaay too exaggerated. And it what universe does it force protoss players to play hyper-agressive? Where? When? How?

The original post emphasized the frustration's gameplay, not the balance. You don't seem to find the difference between fun and balance. It doesn't matter if you can overcome it, it's still frustrating to play against it.It doesn't matter if I can win against this protoss a bazillion time, if there's still something that makes it not fun to play against, then you can be sure I won't be playing this game any longer.

Didn't mean to offend you in any form but my PoV on the matter can be summerized with the following:Protoss so called "control" abilities/gimicks/w/e have been in the game for so long that became naturally inherent to it. Protoss players learned to live with it, other races learned to adapt. In reality these things are not that defining and "gamebreaking". People just desilke everything they don't understand. But when they finally DO, they are completely fine with that. And now we come to the good part. All three races in SC2 really stand out. With the help of gimicks or not. They truly do.

Did it ever cross your mind that there are people who understand and still dislike it ? The fact that you think they are fine is only your opinion.

And btw. The same game with no gimick mechanics is called BW. It even has a remastered version. But the sole fact SC2 is way more popular (at least in the foreign scene) speaks for itself. Again. I have nothing against simplier design choices. But we never really know what is the best choice. Because design isn't an equation. It can't be calculated.

Do us a favor and don't compare those 2 games. The remastered version is just a trap. It's basically bw but still with the same pathing problem, limited unit selection, no queens, no chronos, no medivacs, nothing from sc2. Mechanically-wise, sc2 is simply far better than bw. That's exactly why I couldn't get back to bw anymore.The overall gameplay is much worse in bw than it is in sc2. FFs are just a minor nuisance compared to what bw has. But it doesn't mean sc2 is frustrating to play at times (which mostly comes from protoss units).

I thought i got myself clear in my post but i'll try one more time. People find everything they don't understand/something's dragging them out of comfort zone "frustrating". A lost a game - frustrating!, I got to get up early - frustrating!, I need to go to a shop to get something to eat - frustrating as fck! Ofc im exaggerating (just a bit) but how do i distinguish these from "real" (as you insist) frustration? And does it even exist? Or its just an excuse for not being able to overcome a challenge?

Not gonna read the rest. Did you even read my post ? I said it doesn't matter if I can overcome that challenge or not. If it's frustrating, then it's not fun to play. Or do I have to make myself more clear ? I DO understand the challenge. I CAN overcome the challenge even with ease. Does it still make it fun ? No.

And I'm pretty sure I'm far from being the only guy who doesn't like those things. Much like there are many frustrating thing in the game that make it random, especially the strong protoss pushes, or the end games where there are only energy units such as ravens, templars, infestors and vipers. And also some of the zerg units that are Broodlords and to a lesser extent swarmhost since they're free.

Obviously, this is only my opinion. Much like yours. While I agree for the most majority of time, when ppl don't understand, they simply choose to ignore it and whine. But don't automatically think all the people don't understand it.

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth. Oscar Wilde

On April 27 2018 23:44 Ej_ wrote:Just because u don't like sth, doesn't mean it's wrong :o. People complain about everything in Starcraft and call it "bad design", from parasitic bomb, to warpgate, to marines.

On April 27 2018 23:44 Ej_ wrote:Just because u don't like sth, doesn't mean it's wrong :o. People complain about everything in Starcraft and call it "bad design", from parasitic bomb, to warpgate, to marines.

On April 27 2018 23:44 Ej_ wrote:Just because u don't like sth, doesn't mean it's wrong :o. People complain about everything in Starcraft and call it "bad design", from parasitic bomb, to warpgate, to marines.

Don't forget that sensor towers are peak bad design.

Well its not like theyre good design either :D

They aren't genius design by any means, but if there are issues in the game that need addressing, sensor towers are not any kind of priotity. They aren't something that's spammed or even used that often. The difference they make in pro games isn't that significant imo.;

Marauders could stand to see an hp buff. The current rate at which zerglings and zealots wreck them is too much. Disruptors, lurkers, and tanks are also good against them. This means they really don't have the place they're supposed to fill.

We can't just buff their armour, as this would cause problems in TvT and TvZ.An HP buff to marauder will fix TvP without ruining TvZ because hydras out-range maruaders anyways and roaches can always tank in the mid-game for the extra duration that an hp buff would provide

IMO this would fix many things right now from the excess strength of roach/ravager allins to the issue that Terran has no real hard counter to zealots except liberators.

Pls comment and share your ideas about this suggested change. I don't want to keep the air stuff escalating; in my opinion the best way to do this is to explore hp buffs for ground units and attack strength decreases accross the board.

Which brings me to point #2, the pace of the game:

I don't know if I've just been really unlucky or what, but in the last 10 streams or so that I've watched professionals, the number of times I've seen expensive units just misrallied or given away or armies un-A-moved to death just is driving me crazy. It's not just that people are mismicroing because their opponent cleverly distracted them, either. It's like there's too much for them to do in the first place.

I'ts been the third year now since LOTV release. I have waited patiently and have, at this point, not once seen evidence that pro players have truly raised their skill to be able to handle more units faster. (Tankivac was an exception. I truly saw players raise the skill level due to that one.)

Maybe it's time to consider starting with fewer workers. Allow the game to have an interesting early-game phase which isn't all-ins.

clearly if everyone just plays like Maru Terran is balance just like during the broodlord/infestor era all you had to do as terran was either play as Mvp,taeja or Polt to make Terran Balance against zerg.

On May 01 2018 22:54 Carminedust wrote:clearly if everyone just plays like Maru Terran is balance just like during the broodlord/infestor era all you had to do as terran was either play as Mvp,taeja or Polt to make Terran Balance against zerg.

Terran can play like avilo and be GM, so whining about "I should play like maru", when mech is so easy too play and strong...